Appeal No. 2005-1459
Application No. 09/950,612
“improved,” much less shown why these results are commensurate in
scope with the claims. Furthermore, appellants have not
explained the seemingly contradictory results in Table II (page
15 of the specification) where a single metal oxide and a mixed
metal oxide produce the same polishing results.
Appellants argue that the ceria of claim 4 differs from
other ceria, while agreeing with the examiner that ceria obtained
from the current source is subject to change (Brief, page 14).
We agree with the examiner that, absent a showing of a different
ceria product, the ceria of Robinson must be considered no
different from the ceria recited in claim 4 on appeal. We note
that there is no evidence on this record that ceria obtained from
Nyacol differs from the ceria disclosed by Robinson.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the
totality of the record, including due consideration of
appellants’ evidence and arguments, we determine that the
preponderance of the evidence weighs most heavily in favor of
obviousness within the meaning of section 103(a). Therefore we
affirm the rejection of claims 2-6 under section 103(a) over
Robinson.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007